Posts Tagged ‘evolution’

“Problems” with the KJB? Think again, look again, be a Berean

November 15, 2011

The NIV and other translations and the accusations of “problems” with the KJB I have seen have provided excellent occasions to show why I am a KJBO defender. Two-thirds of the Bible-gone! The accuracy of a different second-person singular–Gone! The cardinal order of the six days of creation –Gone! Not one jot or tittle shall fail–Gone with thousands on thousands of jots and tittles. Jots and tittles were an obvious allusion to the tiniest nuance of meaning in the prophecies, and they are lost first in all the dynamic-philosophy translations, and lost in unnecessary “language modernization” in the others.

For God is not the author of the confusion of a hundred different translations. I have yet to see ONE BIBLICAL REFERENCE that says God would never intervene to ensure one accurate standard for his word, down to jot and tittle.

By their fruits ye shall know them. Claiming that the gospel of Mark leaves Jesus in the tomb and never left us the Great Commission (profusely quoted by the earliest Christian leaders) reminds of me of Job’s comment: “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me”. What can we expect from the Greek base compiled by a pair of reprobates about whom their own sons wrote that they did not believe Jesus was God, that Charles Darwin was right and the creation narrative in Genesis was myth, that Jesus’ sacrifice for sins was a “bloody horror”, and that belief in the miracles was stupid.

Yeah, I can believe they were almost incredulous at the request from the Bishop for their help.

Where is the verse that says God said he would never ever make sure the words in the original autographs were understood the way he wanted them to be understood ages later? With all he said about his word, why oh why would he trust in us mere men for the job??!

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Many infallible proofs of the Bible

October 2, 2011

To those who claim that faith in the Bible is based on pure whim, as somebody who was won to belief in the Bible from atheism and radical socialism through pure history, science, facts, sifted through Boolean logic, I must strongly protest with Paul that our faith in Jesus Christ is based on “MANY INFALLIBLE PROOFS”. Once I got there, in my forty years hence, the evidence just keeps piling up. Some do come to Jesus because they were simply raised in a strong household, others for other reasons, but making their decision at some point.

But all believers are well served by the fact that Jesus doesn’t even really expect us to have a “blind” faith. The Darwinists and materialists are the ones with a “blind faith” in nature to create everything. In an interesting humorous joke by God, the famous atheist proselytizer Richard Dawkins even said so in the very title to his book “The Blind Watchmaker”. God makes even the wrath of man to praise him.

In fact, we are commanded to have an answer for those who ask us such questions.

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

We “have not seen” the Lord Jesus with our eyes like Thomas did even before putting his hand through the wound, but we have an embarrassment of evidence today.The lightning-fast pace at which the gospel expanded across the Roman Empire from Jerusalem after the Resurrection, the written eyewitness testimony of the apostles that has more strenght than an affidavit, signed in their own blood, martyred for the gospel, including Thomas “the doubter”.

And today thousands of Creation scientists bear witness to the fact that “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork”. Biology bears witness too, with every major advance exposing the folly of the pagan Darwinian doctrine of spontaneous biogenesis, including fossils, DNA, epigenetics, and irreducible molecular machines.

More Darwinian Follies…

February 25, 2011

Good examples of misinformation and information gaps repeated ad nauseum to confuse the gullible:

See here an example of backwards logic: “The ‘Hobbit were diseased humans’ argument is a long way from proven, yet you deploy it like its been settled.”

Turn that around. The point was and is that the Hobbit was treated as a glorious missing link until oops, what about this, what about that, and some of them said it was consistent with “diseased humans”. Except I think it is just another example of short people, like the Pygmies in Africa.

They are in danger of being eaten –literally– out of existence right now in Africa, as Christianity gets pushed back and the old paganism recovers. They are now regarded as animals by warring tribes around them, “missing links” you might say.

Christian missionaries are leading the charge to save them from their persecutors.

“Nested heirarchies of organisms” are a natural corollary of both functionality, using the same building blocks for survival and propagation of life –DNA, proteins, and all that.

It’s telling that evolutionist logic can get “convergent evolution” when the functionality doesn’t fit the hierarchies, but cannot see functional convergence as a natural attribute of design.

Claims that the “fossils show a continuum of features from the past to the present” only serve to expose the abysmal state of science education, and the attack on true science that the Darwinian religious beliefs represent.

…Noah’s…would expect to see a uniform distribution of animal types across the world, originating as they did from one release point somewhere in the middle east…

LOL. Another example of a belly-laughing demonstration of selective logical circuits, who don’t know how to apply the principles they use elsewhere to this one. There are major campaigns on to save ecologies endangered from the introduction of alien species, as we speak.

They brag about how fast a peppered moth goes from white to black to white, but fast radiated breeding and natural selection works for your theory you see it at work here too.

Here you go, a YOUNG-Earth creationist who explains how the marsupials and exotic animals of Australia show consistency with the idea of descent from their non-marsupial counterparts:

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/marsupial_migration.html

The various kinds of animals in Australia line up with the kinds of animals elsewhere, suggesting common descent from those animals’ ancestors, rather than a common marsupial ancestor. This is one of Darwinians’ favorite toys in their grab bag: “convergent evolution” based on conditions in Australia.

Stephen Gould has admitted that the fossils show no continuum of anything at all, where it counts. There are no mammals with feathers, but neither do you have anything at all between reptiles and birds, and the showcase ‘examples’ of one or two break down to plainly one or the other on examination.

Here is the Biblical description of DNA in fact:

Psalms 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

How many lines of evidence form nature corroborate your bible’s account?

Plenty. There’s the above verse describing DNA. Others describe the effect of a nearby nuclear explosion on human flesh in a future prophecy, the vast currents, or “rivers”, in the oceans (at a time when Greeks were saying the oceans were generally calm and shallow), they hydrologic cycle, and don’t forget an amazing set of rules for scientific hygiene in food preparation and treatment of diseases. The “stretching out” of the heavens.

Looks like none to me.

Well, Jesus healed the blind who accepted faith in him, and he can heal you too.

Its embarrassing to watch.

Yes, like Muggeridge predicted, [Darwinian] evolution will be seen soon enough as the object of ridicule and hilarious laughter, as scientists will marvel at its pagan mythology.

Nothing new under the sun:

Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

Let us all flee from the kind of paganism that will only lead to another Hitler’s fascination with helping the human species evolve, another Margaret Sanger (founder of the Birth Control League) that wants us to eliminate “inferior stock”.

Let us find love in the God of Love and his Son.

ID, Creationism, Religion and Science

August 17, 2010

Newspeak dictionaries put out by the Propaganda Ministry of Big Brother try to paint ID as creationism, but of course they know that it’s not the same thing any more than SETI is just a way to sneak UFO abductions into mainstream science. Not that mainstream science shuns all craziness, and not that there’s anything wrong with creationism!

> Religion and Science used to be bedfellows in past centuries and many of the scientist expressed a belief in a supreme being and many identified themselves as Christians but times have changed and Science and Religion got divorced and Science married Politics and Religion has tried to be Scientific with not good results, at least in today’s climate of controversy…

“Religion” is a word used today with a meaning that is mixed up with the word “Organized Religion”. It was the organized form the US Founding Fathers had in mind with the word in the First Amendment. This, in spite of the fact that some of them, the minority of them, had a more personal view. And even those made a point of frequent church attendance, being Christians.

But true Bible believers should rejoice that that the Bible, is “not a science textbook”.

“Consensus” (unproven) science, has been knocked down hundreds, even thousands of times, by actual discoveries and real-world experimental results that use the real-world scientific method. And yet blind-faith followers acting like herds of buffalo keep picking up “consensus” and trying to make it look like it has some magical quality of truth to it.

> I think ID is an attempt to get Christianity back into the public schools…

Government child indoctrination centers (aka “public schools”) have made mincemeat of children’s brains the last century or so, and not just in areas that relate to Creation and Intelligent Design. In the US alone, the primary-school level McDuffy readers of 1915 (I have read parts of some of them) would humiliate Harvard grads of today.

The campaigns for “public schools” was driven –is driven– by forces that want an easily manipulated same-thinking population.

Faith in anything other than the almighty state is anathema to the plutocrats, and generates independent-minded thinkers. The only opiate that plutocrat Marxists will allow is their own pie-in-the-sky promises with which they fool the “public”, up until they take power and consolidate it, at which time they don’t care what you think.

That’s why the battleground fro freedom is shaping up to be the Internet itself. The American administration (both faces of the political duopoly), along with all the other national administrations, is collaborating in the development of strategies to bring it under control. They have only allowed it to get a network medium established that addicts the important elements of the populations. (They don’t think much of the unconnected poor).

THEY HATE VOUCHERS

That’s why they hate school vouchers, but they hate tax credits even more. They despise the idea of letting parents have any more control over their children’s education and future than the parents already have. In fact it interferes with their strategies to displace the parents’ role in the formation of new generations.

It is not just Christians who should be reacting with fury against the takeover of their children’s lives by the state, and indeed, there are many others. Misguided anarchists are one group, but there are even-minded atheists and people of other persuasions who are disgusted with the academic neglect of official institutions. Some of them even add one plus one and get two when they realize that the official government neglect of education in their turf is deliberate.

It’s a good thing we can know that even though they may build up their global dictatorship infrastructure to prepare for the Beast and his tyranny, he will have massive opposition from many different sectors of the body politic, not just the Christians who knew what was coming. And it’s a good thing that before he can totally destroy the world, Jesus will be coming back to put a stop to the madness.

–trutherator

Bible Interpretation: How To

July 20, 2010

What is wrong with the the common notion that the “firmament’, the “windows of heaven”, the ‘pillars of the earth”, the “four corner of the earth”, etc, constitute phenomonological language that accomodated ANE cosmology?

The answer to this lies in understanding the proper approach to scripture, besides taking note of the big caution flag that this very recent “discovery” of what Genesis really meant to the ancient Hebrews did not happen until after modern denials of Creation came up with new “science so called”.

Here follow guidelines for those who need it for “interpreting” Bible verses, especially the interpretation of figures of speech like those mentioned in the above list.

“Phenomenological language” is a bit different concept, but one may call it one example of a figure of speech.

Considerations for understanding the Bible.

(1).STRAIGHTFORWARD SENSE OF THE SECTION OF SCRIPTURE.

That means if the literal meaning makes semantical and grammatical sense as is, then there is no need to tamper with it, just believe.

Sometimes the literal meaning of one isolated word is semantically ridiculous, like talking about the “four corners of the earth”. In such cases, the word is part of a “figure of speech”. The individual words used in a figure of speech have no meaning, because they are part of what is conceptually the same thing as a “compound word”.

What some people call “phenomenological language” is really a figure of speech. Saying the sun is “on the horizon” does not mean it is physically located on one of the points of the physical land that we can see from a given point, it means that’s the way we see it. By they way, I prefer the term “positional” for this particular example.

But if there is no compelling reason –especially in context– to say it is only phenomenological or positional, then it’s not.

If Acts 1:9 says Jesus was “taken up” and “a cloud received him out of their sight” then that’s what happened.
If Exodus 20:11 says “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is”, then that is what happened.
If it says a great fish swallowed Jonah, then you don’t need a yardstick to measure the fish.

(2).IMMEDIATE CONTEXT IN SCRIPTURE.

Immediate context trumps anything from outside context for interpreting anything about which there is some question. But it is an invalid question anyway if it comes from doubt, or a desire to escape the straightforward meaning of a word or verse.

A word in scripture has its own meaning, and the immediate context clarifies it further.

For example, if you don’t know exactly what a cubit is, you can know from the immediate contexts that mention Goliath, that he was abnormally huge, and that nine feet is a much more reasonable measure than is six feet.

(3).SURROUNDING CONTEXT IN THE SCRIPTURE.

Further help for those who are still confused is provided by context found a step beyond immediate.

For example, there are attempts to cast doubt on the virgin birth by making Mary a “young woman” instead are laughable when you consider she asked how could this be “for I know not a man?” Try substituting “young woman” for “virgin” in the Isaiah prophecy for a really good belly laugh. Imagine the Lord telling the prophet that he will give you a sign, that a young woman shall conceive and bear a son. What a sign!

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the case of Genesis, it does nobody any good to look elsewhere for the meaning of the word “day”. The immediate context says it was “the evening and the morning”. The days are numbered as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. The days are not only numbered but clearly given as consecutive ordinal numbers, one following the other.

For Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it does no good either to try to divide them out. The first verse certainly can stand on its own by itself as a magnificent proclamation of God being the Creator, but it’s snuggled up to the rest of Genesis scripture that follows.

Keep in mind that although the KJB is accepted by tens of thousands as inspired word of God (call it re-inspired if you want to), it seems like nobody considers either the paragraph markings or the verse and chapter organization as inspired. They are convenient for referring to particular sections of scripture, but the first two verses of Genesis are part of the integrated narrative that begins the chapter.

Also, anything else would be irrelevant. In any case the only reason to try to twist it into supporting an earlier creation of some sort has no corroboration from context in any way. The idea only came about to accomodate the millions of years that evolutionists were adding on the age of the earth. This also is shot down by the fact that there was no light until God said “Let there –be– light”, and so such an idea shoots itself in the foot.

(4).THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE BIBLE.

This is where relevant references from elsewhere teach us. It is true that some sections of scripture may not be too clear to someone, so cross-referencing can help. It is also true that we can all too easily and all too often take a chapter or a verse in some way, but then we find that the way we took it is not at all what the Bible says on the subject everywhere else, so we have to go back to that verse.

Peter said this about some of Paul’s writings:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So some scriptures can lead you away if you want them to. So don’t!

(5).ENGLISH DICTIONARY. (With great caution)
Great caution because if the dictionary is not a dedicated devoted follower of Christ with spiritual discernment and guard up against deceit, one can be fooled into getting the wrong definition out of a set, and even there, the misapplication can be wrong.

In general if you are merely trying to let the Bible tell you what it says, instead of trying to figure out how to fit it to yourself, you will find the truth of it.

I said English dictionary because this writing is in English, and because the KJB is the gold standard of scripture today. The KJB is written in English and the major factor in the stabilization of the language.

For example, some creationists seem to have a hurdle with the the word “firmament”. The word firmament is a proper English word, like so many that were imported into the English language from Biblical sources long before the KJB was translated. I have seen the claim that a word that was in common use already for 70 years still does not count as a proper word to use for “translation”, as if no self-respecting United Nations interpreter today would use the word “tsunami” when translating from Japanese.

Most of the time where modern critics find fault with “difficult words” in the English of the KJB, it is merely a justification for a versions preference. But some will not know the meaning, and will still be unsure with context, but all they really need is a dictionary.

(5a).BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING GIFTS.

One of my best friends is of Greek descent (cue laughter), but he would agree, I wot. Beware of Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, especially Biblical dictionaries today. Most of them are based on the work of one Gerard Kittel, a “Christian scholar” who was the “Christian spiritual adviser” to Adolf Hitler.

In part because of the blasphemies in his work, we now have modern versions using the word “race” where it should be using the word “seed”.

Like the verse which becomes literally racist in the NIV, Ezra 9:2: They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”

That verse should read:

Ezra 9:2 “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

(6).REPETITION AND REDUNDANCY.

If you are tempted to override a section of scripture with some extraneous doctrine because “respectable Christians” say it means something else, but this particular scripture incorporates a repetition of the matter, this is an emphasis on the clear meaning of it.

(7)..AVOID DOCTRINES OF THE UNGODLY.

Beware of the surrounding pagan doctrines creeping in to your view of the Bible. God’s chosen people have lived apart from the world around them, in the world but not of it. Therefore if a tribe nearby to the peoples of the Bible held a doctrine, it might be good reason to think the Hebrews believed differently. Certainly their ideas of creation, cosmology, origins were different.

Not every idea of some particular ungodly thinker is bad, they do get some things right of course. But they cannot trump the clear meaning of a word, as reinforced by immediate context, and by more distant context, and by relevant declarations elsewhere in scripture.

(8).THE BIBLE IS TRUE.
(It is a non-fiction book of books).

This may seem like it goes without saying for a Bible believer. But it helps understand some scriptures when extraneous “interpretations” are trying to say it means something other than what it says.

The Bible is written as a statement of what happened, and of what the world is now, and how things work in the real world, and prophecies of what shall be.

Analogies, fables, fairy tales, symbolic stories, these are so identified.

For example, the heads of the ten-headed beast in Revelation are identified clearly there and in Daniel as representing ten kings, and the seven mountains upon “on which the woman sitteth” of Revelation 17 and 18 are clearly identified specifically as seven kings.

Note only that five are already fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece), and one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come (The Empire of the Beast, or Antichrist).

—trutherator

Anti-creationists should open their minds..

July 19, 2010

What creationists are asking for from evolutionists and darwinists, and young-earth creationists from old-earth creationists.

Why should they preach to six-day creationists about open-mindedness and not their own excessive bashers?

I went through likely more paradigms of origins than almost anybody in my younger days, including old-earth creationism, evolution, Big Bang, until real-world and science and historical fact with their logical consequences became so overwhelming that it became settled for me.

The Bible has proven time after time to trump its detractors, including those inside Christian institutions.

For example, I much prefer discussing the actual issues relevant to the issues of the Bible and the science than engage in discussions about behavior.

What is the norm in the establishment-approved “consensus science” today.

Take it from an anti-creationist if not me. Here’s Michael Crichton
blasting away at today’s “consensus science” and the way it is the /science establishment/ that has its sacred inviolable dogmas that are not permitted dissent:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html

Funny, he started off with a total logical emasculation of the “Drake equation”. It should have killed it forever, but it remains the favorite “science” argument of SETI.

*”The Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. . . ”

*”Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”*

*”There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .”*

*”This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands…

“…Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?”*

–trutherator

Even More Embarrassments for Anti-Creationists

July 18, 2010

Bicycle-man has provided us with more entertaining sound bites to use to showcase the bankruptcy of Darwinism.

Piltdown man was suspected early on because as more hominid fossils were discovered Piltdown didn’t fit the pattern shown by the others. Also, there were no primitive apes in England so that made it even more suspect.

Yeah, fifty years later, after getting showcased and front and center at the museum in London, when they found it was a fraud, everybody claimed they knew it all along.

Reminds me of a Pee Wee Herman snip from one movie, speaking of bikes, the ad for one of his movies where he falls off his bicycle and says “I meant to do that”.

It is a shame it took forty years to discover the fraud, but it was scientists who discovered the fraud, not creationists. This shows the self-correcting nature of science, something that religious nuts don’t have.

Ha, not creationists, so what, creationists were telling them all along it didn’t prove anything about Darwinism. Creationists were right fifty years before the “scientific establishment”, but they didn’t mention that in this blurb about “it wasn’t creationists”. Ha. But it exposed how desperate the mad scientist bunch is to have even a fraud for evidence, because they are so short on it!

One “evolutionary biologist” said you could fit ALL pre-hominid fossils into the back of a pickup truck.

And science isn’t self-correcting it doesn’t do anything. Scientists sometimes do what we call science. But for sure scientists are not “self-correcting”. Since they put God out of their thoughts it gets crazier by the minute.

And the delusion that scientists do not have any of the common foibles of common man, is an even worse delusion. Ask a real scientists who has been tortured through peer review and had a paper rejected only to see his own idea show up in somebody else’s published article.

That is “The way science works”. Ask atheist cosmologist and Royal Society Fellowship recipient Joao Magueijo, of the book “Faster Than the Speed of Light”.

Nebraska Man was never accepted by the scientific community.

But they promoted its use in the national press to pile dirt on William Jennings Bryant in the press across the country –during the Scopes trial. Some “coincidence”.

The use the same tactics today, use the court system to do their dirty work, preferably where they can find a good compromised corrupt judge. Watch out when you start using government halls to overturn the people by deciding which theories are “scientific”, you have trouble, and it’s going to backfire on you.

The Darwinian establishment is bothered by laws that even tell their students it’s okay to question scientific orthodoxy. That should tell you something.

Also, these examples you give are from the 1910s and 1920s.

Like the 21st century dino-bird in China?

And whoever said that Neanderthal Man is the same as modern humans is misinformed. They are close relatives, perhaps close enough to be part ancestor to some modern humans, so close that they are now considered by most to be a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. That doesn’t mean they are “just like us.”

“Just like us” is a big word. When it is a true hominid of the rare find, it turns out eventually the same as with the Hobbits they found in Indonesia and the Pygmies in Africa. Oh gosh, they are us!

Like Ota Benga.

This man from the Pygmy tribe in Africa was showcased –IN A CAGE!– at the St. Louis Fair as an exhibit of the “missing link” in man’s evolution, and shipped like an animal to the New York Zoo afterward. The man that was only released after protests from Christians!

Would ANY amount of evidence be sufficient for you to admit that humans share common biological ancestry with other animals? It seems you are very misinformed and that you have a closed mind to truth because you are looking at everything through filters of faith. I can’t believe in a God that would try to trick us by planting all these clues that evolution explains and predicts so neatly. Just a few would be one thing, but there is so much evidence of so many different types that all point to the same reality that it seems madness for anyone to deny it.

It’s not there, and you’re not offering any real evidence. God didn’t paint any such clues. It’s a “fairy tale for adults” like one evolutionary biologist said once. My faith is based on solid evidence, unlike maybe some Christians.

Again, would ANY amount of evidence be sufficient for you to admit you are wrong. If so, why don’t you already accept the truth of God’s creation (i.e., that evolution is as much a fact of nature as gravity is)? If not, why not?

I told you. Darwinism is a long-since discredited ancient pagan superstitious religious belief, with a new face painted on with big words meant to impress. I was once an atheist, evolutionist, communist, anarchist. The facts of science and history and logic took me to the Bible as the truth it is.

You can take an apple and drop it and demonstrate gravity. Breeding a cat from dog stock has never worked. Breeding a completely new form does not work. “Kinds”, or to use the paleontology term “forms”, have never been shown in the fossils to turn into other forms, except by the pure imagination of the believer, who in this case believes it by blind faith.

The gap between major forms in the fossils is wider than the space between clusters of galaxies, but in the fossils the vacuum doesn’t even have one atom floating around like there are in space vacuums.

—trutherator

Answers to Monotonous Anti-Creation Cliches

July 3, 2010

Knocking down Darwinian props one by one…

>>…Regarding your anecdotes about how the faith of individuals is affected by the origins debate, I don’t doubt the accuracy of those stories. However, for every one of those I suspect there are dozens to thousands that cut the other way. They are an interesting, and important, sidebar. But they aren’t pertinent to the basic questions.

Sure there are billions in the earth who now doubt the Bible because of the non-stop relentless indoctrination of their teachers who told them “science” (the ancient pagan Darwinian myth) contradicted it, versus dozens to thousands of SCIENTISTS confronted with real world facts that compel the willing to accept Biblical truth. Creationism is growing lots faster than the long-ages myths.

To say that is not pertinent to the basic question of either the “origins debate” or sharing our faith is a preposterous illogical declaration.

Creation-deniers provide an excellent catalyst for sharing the truth. I hate lies, and Darwinism is The Big Lie of today. Not for nothing Mao Tse-Tung’s first priority in schools when he took China was not Marxism, but it was Darwinian evolution. It is the denial of the God of the Bible, because the truth of the Creation and the Resurrection is dangerous to atheism, paganism, communism, socialism, and every other tyrannical philosophy.

“Neither give place to the devil”. Subtle sideswipes and bigger broadsides against YEC and YECs and at the Bible text at face value (despite the ritual obligatory disclaimers to the contrary) with me are like saying “sic’ em” to a dog. Arf arf. Protecting the gullible from the Big Lie.

>>You said, “You have to torture the evidence and cover up the physical evidence to say the earth is so many billions of years old anyway. That would be crazy!”… ..There is abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth. If there weren’t such evidence, the debate on this issue would not be sustainable. Possibly the current theories will prove to be wrong at some point in the future. But until they are it isn’t at all helpful to summarily dismiss them with inferences about conspiracy theories.

Using the old facile “conspiracy theories” canard gets you a loss of at lest ten points on the credibility scale.

And who told you “summarily”? It took me years of open-minded following of evidence to find out that the taxpayer-financed government indoctrination centers had been lying to me for sixteen years!

Using the same logic, without the abundant evidence for YEC and that old-earthers are torturing the physical evidence makes the debate sustainable against OEC.

–And if there were so much “abundant evidence for an old universe and an old earth” as versus YEC evidence then tell us… Why do the most prominent scientists who believe in the ancient pagan old-earth myth pee in their pants in horror at the prospect of an actual fair debate with a YEC scientist?

In the anti-creationist book “Science and Creationism”, the editor Ashley Montague said he put together this anthology of essays by their “big guns” because he was totally humiliated in a debate he took with an unnamed creation scientist. He didn’t say it that way but that’s what he said. At the time I was still under some trepidation, thinking maybe there was some science unknown to me on the subject. The book actually took me from firm to rock-solid convinced in YEC.

>>As I said, “Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the gospel defined to include a particular view on the process or dating of material creation”.

Repetition is no argument against the fact that the first chapter of the New Testament and the 3rd chapter of Luke repeat the genealogies of Jesus Christ Our Lord straight back in linear fashion to Adam himself, and notes that Adam’s parentage points to God. This is a reference to the Garden of Eden as a real-world fact, and the reference to Noah in their points to the Flood.

Besides which, Jesus said God made male and female, he didn’t say it just happened.

And don’t give us the condescending clap trap about God had to speak in terms of the ancients. The Old Earth Myth is an ancient myth, one shared by Hindus and Buddhists and Humanists and many other such religions. But God chose to tell the truth, how about that.

Everything was created before Adam, when the genealogies began. There are very legitimate language questions about the time interval from verse 1 to verse 3, that is if you insist on an interpretation based on a modernist focus on material origins. But there is also a very credible interpretation based on the cultural context of ancient cosmology that focuses on functional origins. There are just too many open questions on G1 to take a dogmatic position on age.

The “Gap Theory” so-called is a totally new myth invented by men who preferred to put their trust in men whose breath is in his nostrils than to put their trust in the eternal God, even though the Bible has made fools of its deniers for millennia. It was invented to cover for God’s obvious YEC message in Genesis, for people who didn’t want to give up their faith, and it was “popularized” by Bible-hater Darby in England and Cyrus Scofield the convicted swindler in the United States, followed by too many wannabes.

The most important Christian dogma is that the Bible is the Truth, period, end of point, no if’s and’s or but’s. There is so much overwhelming real-world evidence of this that anyone seeking the truth will find it.

> My point in this entire discussion is not to take a position for or against the global flood interpretation, but to simply point out that there are sufficient interpretative and technical questions to caution against a dogmatic position. The word ‘world’ or ‘earth’, as I pointed our below is not determinative, due to its varied uses. There are the possibilities of land bridge collapses at the Bosporus or Gibraltar. The flood occurred prior to Babel, so it’s possible that all of life was still in a relatively concentrated ‘region’. And of course there are all of the many technical questions about water volume and population logistics on the ark.

Watch out when they claim to be arguing for a “neutral” point of view. There is no such thing. Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord. The truth is not a neutral position between two opposing viewpoints.

It’s a dogmatic position to insist that the Bible is ambiguous where it obviously is not. Like trying to say “day” doesn’t mean “day”, or claiming that there is enough ambiguity between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 to cram billions of years in there! It’s laughable, and no wonder atheists have a field day rejoicing over how Christians are trying to put their own pagan myths into the Bible.

>>The bottom line is that the flood was what it was, and the biblical testimony is attesting to what it was in the linguistic and cultural context of the biblical authors and audiences. Whether the flood was actually regional or global has no bearing on the validity of that testimony. Either way, the testimony is true and accurate in its ancient context.

Whether the narrative of the Flood is true to fact or not has “no bearing on the validity of that testimony”??! Wow. That’s amazing. It exposes the bias of summarily dismissing anything the Bible says if some self-arrogant “scientist” says it’s wrong.

Anyway, why would one want to play the fool just because the smarter-than-thou” crowd does? Why deny the physical evidence and agree with the foolish idea that the world is billions of years old just because some people who hated the Bible invented their own new variation on ancient pagan myths? Myths that were discredited long ago? Why should we be like dogs and return to the same vomit of ancient pagan myths like Darwinism?

No matter how much indoctrination they foist on the unsuspecting, pretending that their origins myth is something new from science, they cannot escape the fact that long ages for earth, the universe, and life on earth are ancient pagan myths. The ancient Hebrews knew intimately of them. It is a historically illiterate argument to say they would not have understood long ages. God told them, and us, the truth.

1. What ‘yom’ means in terms of our literal concept of time. There is more than one reasonable option on this question.

It’s mind-boggling that anti-creationists still use the word “day” in Genesis to defend themselves.

But now they’ll have to explain why plants lasted millions of years on the earth before land animals, they have to explain how there was night and day for how many eons before there was a sun. Putting millions or billions of years for “day” in Genesis One makes it a much greater super-miracle than the Biblical one they deny. The real-world question is, why would God take so long to make everything?

Note that the proponents of billion-year “days” never bother with “the evening and morning were the first day”.. “…the second day..” and “the third day”… The emphasis on the 24-hour day is manifold and does not rest on the meaning of “day”. Ask a Hebrew scholar whether “evening and morning” are a 24-hour day or whether it’s a million-year epoch.

And add to all that the ordinal nature of the list! The “first day”, “second day”, and so on– just adds emphasis to the clear meaning of the passage.

Claiming that Genesis One is a literal description of long-ages universe is so ridiculous that it is a much better argument to try to claim it’s not about Creation, or it’s symbolic or something.

2. The grammatical structure for 1:1-2 is disputed around 2-3 possibilities. Individual Hebrew scholars may prefer one option or the other, but virtually all acknowledge we can’t know with certainty what was grammatically intended.

That assertion is clearly contradicted by the fact that virtually all Orthodox Jewish scholars, with the rare exception, agree among themselves that they are certain about “what was grammatically intended”. Apparently you’ve been reading too much anti-creationist stuff out there where they state things as if they are just-so and fall right into the same pit.

3. A compelling case has been made that Genesis 1 is written in the context of ancient cosmology because that is the way it would have made sense to the original author and audience.

Again, that is a historically illiterate Big Lie by the crowd that hates the Bible, and is so easily refuted it is incredible how many people love to buy into it, as I stated above.

It came straight from the mouths of the smarter-than-thou academics who hate the Bible with a passion and see things through their own religious dogma that the Bible is myth. Sounds like something the misnamed “Jesus Seminar” babblers would come up with, who only got notice because their fellow Jesus-haters in big-name magazines like Time just loved anything that contradicted the Bible.

That was before we had the Internet as a forum to expose the stark-naked emperor. That’s why they are trying to figure out ways to shut us down. Senator Lieberman the other day praised the law giving Obama (and any other president) the authorization to just shut down the Internet, which also includes a clause immunizing telecommunications companies from any lawsuit that arises from any cooperation with the federal government. Lieberman says China has that capability so we shouldn’t worry about it.

Maybe we’re closer to the global dictatorship of The Beast than many think we are.

If Americans don’t yell it down with a roar, we’ll soon enough get another Gulf of Tonkin incident that will provide an excuse to shut down the Internet. Bush said they would not tolerate any conspiracy theories, but they are looking for a way to quash them.

The hard dogmatic position is held by anti-creationists who dogmatically and stubbornly hold to the dogma of radioisotope dating. One creationist who happened to get a course in geological dating reports the professor saying that their radioisotope dating (of billions of years) requires a total of no less that 22 assumptions.

Dogmatic pronouncements against “aspersions on alternative views on the dating of the original material creation are unwarranted” indeed.

Simply repeating ad infinitum that Genesis One does not mean what it says, is no argument at all. YEC scientists in this debate are the ones that keep pointing to science, while it is the creation-deniers and design-deniers that want to keep talking about religion.

Creation-denying pagan scientists can censor creation all they want from the oligarch-approved publications, they can censor countering evidence all they want from government indoctrination centers, they can keep publishing blatant lies in biology textbooks, they can deny tenure and deny research funds from science concerns that are open-minded on the origins questions.

But they have a problem with the Internet being so uncontrolled.

Beware of sneak attacks on the Internet. Whether they are from the big players or not.

–trutherator

Science: Witness to Creation

June 26, 2010

“From Raging Evolutionist to Creationist”

That title describes one of the most important aspects of my life in a nutshell, as well as that of tens of thousands of scientists and millions of people across the globe today.

As I was once a raging Darwinist and atheist myself, as well as being a former socialist, the recent article at HondurasWeekly condemning Intelligent Design theories compels an answer.

We can use this article as an exercise to show why the more prominent Darwinians among scientists today absolutely refuse to participate in a fair debate with formal and balanced rules with creation scientists, or even with Intelligent Design advocates.

The editors picked out an especially juicy paragraph to highlight this piece. It shows a repetition of the atheist strategy, applied in varying degrees by agnostics and theistic evolutionists, of using the worst hypocrites and money-grubbing “Christians” they can find in history to use Pavlov-driven associations to help make a point that is little more than invective. Effective for the de-facto monopoly stranglehold they have had on education the past century.

The author started off with a self-assured roar, using the phrase “absurd claims” and “anti-Darwinists” and “inject creationism into society”. Then he jumps right into the same attempt at pretending not to know the difference between creation science and intelligent design.

This strategy is built on their confidence in the use of the hypocrisy of money-grubbing hypocrites to make their case, instead of facts refuting the science. (Apologies to the few atheist scientists who do actually engage in real debate)

Never mind Jesus Christ himself drove those money-grubbing money-changers out of the temple at the wrong end of a bull whip, and called the religious Pharisees of his day “of your father the devil, for he is a liar”.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATION SCIENCE AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN

It is appropriate to clarify the terms for new initiates to this fascinating discussion, or those who only know the confusion coming from deniers of Creation and of common sense.

In a general sense, Creation Science is science as practiced by scientists who believe that the world was created by God, more or less as described in the Bible. “More or less” because there are others like Yarun Hahya, a Turkish Muslim who has a web site where you can find some intriguing factoids about science, as Muslims hold a similar view about creation.

Creation science in that general sense was the science practiced by the greats of science history like Isaac Newton, Roger Bacon, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Listerine, in fact the founders of every modern branch of science.

In a narrower way, Creation Science is science based on using the relevant declarations in the Bible as a guideline. This is mostly known for where it diverges from the Darwinian Creation Myth, of course, and research based on the six-day creation of Genesis One and Noah’s Flood. But there are other declarations in the Bible about the real world that sometimes provide for research, not always known as Creation Research.

Then there is Intelligent Design theory, which is a different approach to science. It is the study of those phenomena in nature that suggest the necessity of an outside intelligent agent for their explanation.

The SETI project is precisely the same kind of idea, being that we can use the tools of science to determine whether a given set of patterns in nature or behavior of naturally occurring entities suggests the existence of an intelligent agent. However, most SETI researchers restrict themselves to extraterrestrial intelligence that fit an anti-creationist model, arbitrary delimiter an unscientific though it is.

In fact, scientists and researchers involved with Intelligent Design propositions include agnostics and skeptics. Its proponents now include the late Andrew Flew, who was the most prominent and acclaimed promoter of atheism in intellectual circles until in his eighties the facts of DNA and how it works convinced him that there had to be some kind of intelligent designer. And no “Creationist” he, he at the same time continued to insist he did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

That’s the difference.

THE RELIGIOUS COVERUP IS BY DARWINISTS

We see the repetition of the tired old accusation that Intelligent Design advocates are somehow trying to “cover up” their religious affiliations. This is trying to win an argument with an attack on the motivations of the opponent rather than the argument. Crying “absurd!” and “is not!” do not count for rational discussion.

They apparently have not learned that for atheists and Darwinism, this has very heavy backfire potential, because the most prominent Darwinians who got any government power in history were the most brutal beasts of history, committing mass genocide on massive scales, and were the biggest liars of history to boot, and (they think) with a “safe” fifty years after the demise of the eugenicist race-breeding of the poster boy for tyranny, Hitler, they now think they can talk about race breeding again. Only call it something else. (Are you listening, Planned Parenthood, nee Birth Control League? Malthusians anyone?)

And Darwinism has its own history of frauds, scandals, coverups, lies, “trade secrets”, revisionist history, and a habit of publishing biology textbooks that present frauds as if they were facts, like Haeckel’s drawings, proven to be frauds 150 years agone already.

The insinuation that intelligent design advocates hide their religion is so easily refuted it should be a gross insult to the reader, and is an embarrassment for anyone who continues to use it, and shows an aversion to using an actual “fact” that speaks to the actual debate. Maybe the problem is the lack of facts for refutation.

Isaac Newton, both a creation scientist and intelligent design advocate, made no secret of his beliefs when doing science, and he made no secret that his motivations were to encourage the faith in God of others. It is the Darwinian education establishment that has kept hidden from us the facts of Isaac Newton’s emphatic beliefs in Creation, and the fact that he wrote more voluminously about the Bible and about his Christianity than he did science and math!

So WHO is hiding the religious affiliations of scientists here?

WHO IS “STIFLING HISTORY”?

The question is put when ID is called an “inquiry-stifling premise”.

Let us investigate the reality of WHO is actually stifling inquiry?

Vestigial organs: The stifling of life-saving research by Darwinian dogma:

There are two fronts here to point up. One is the actual

    historical results

of Darwinian and anti-creationist science, versus the actual results of ID advocates and creationists.

At one time, there were at least 32 human organs that Darwinians had declared “vestigial organs” that no purpose and were “leftovers” from “evolution”. Creationist scientists said do the research and find their purpose! And there are no more “vestigial organs”. You can live without tonsils, or an appendix, but you can live without both your legs too!

So medical research that could have saved lives, like finding the purpose for these human organs, was stifled and unfunded because of the ancient pagan myth of Darwinism.

Vestigial DNA: Stifling research:

Then in this 21st century, early came discussion about “vestigial DNA”, which comprises an actual majority part of the total DNA in your body. They called it this because they had only matched a tiny percentage to actual protein manufacture and other active functions.

My first encounter with the term “vestigial DNA” caused a big fit of laughter, wondering how long it would take them to correct this, yet another major faux pas from Darwinian dogma.

This time a few enterprising geneticists broke through and found that not only did this DNA have a few functions they were just beginning to get a glimpse of, it also served as a shelf of mix-and-match parts with which to do automatic experimentation in genetic combinations during times of environmental stress. Among other things.

<>>

THE HATE-GOD MONOLOGUES

Just like other places, we see here questions that really come from blaming God for everything we see as bad in the world. This is totally irrelevant to ID, for it is not creationism. ID is merely the study of criteria that can be used to determine whether a pattern or phenomenon is the result of design rather than spontaneous natural activity, and where this might or might not apply in science.

Actually, it is the same principle upon which is based much or most of forensic science, archaeology, and other endeavours.

The questions of why there is evil in the world therefore has nothing at all to do with Intelligent Design propositions. They are even irrelevant to Creation science. They used to defend the evil impact of belief in evolution as being irrelevant to the argument, but that was then people actually were educated enough to laugh out loud when somebody suggested evolution was better morally than believing in Jesus Christ.

It reminds me of one of the founders of the American Atheists Association after he became a Christian. He said he had only become atheist because he hated God for the hurt he had suffered in his life.

There are also a number of false premises embedded in most hate-God harangues, many that require answers for another writing. One such error is the long-discredited Malthusian idea that humankind is “procreating itself to extinction”.

Hey! It’s –NOT!– procreation that leads to extinction. By definition. Okay? NOT procreating IS extinction. Procreating is the best way to battle extinction.

Oh, yeah, and defending yourself against socialist and fascist tyrants like Pol Pot who kill off half their own people, or Chinese tryants who don’t bat an eyelid at the slaughter of forty TIMES the entire population of Cambodia, or Stalin who starved millions of Ukrainians to punish them for thinking independently. And beware of those who say they “have always been a Maoist”, like Hugo Chavez did in Beijing.

Complaining and whining bitterly about our lot in life and on the earth collectively as human beings is no argument for anything. Blaming God with a wave of the hand and piling on bitter invective without a serious considering the idea like Andrew Flew did, and other formerly embittered God-haters like myself, proves nothing about anything except for what it says about the accuser. At least Flew defended his ideas with actual arguments.

Take Haiti and Chile, two recent examples of victims of natural disasters. The earthquakes suffered by each country different enormously in terms of the fatalities, injuries, and to the economy. Haiti was helpless and without any kind of governing authority in the days following, while Chile was almost officially insulted by offers of help. This shows not that Haitians are to blame (although Haitian friends of mine do blame the spiritual condition of Haiti for its condition), but that natural disasters differ in their effect depending on the physical, economic, moral, spiritual condition of the affected parties.

And love goes a long way to healing the wounds and lifting up the physically broken and the broken-hearted.

My question about mental acuteness is how anyone could consider the coordinated network of digital computer systems that each one of us has in every one of the trillions of cells in our bodies, and claim –without any reasonable explanation whatsoever– that it just spontaneously arose from some kind of primeval ooze! And that’s just the DNA!

There’s much more for a later. Stay tuned.

But since the moral argument has been engaged, it will be enthusiastically answered.

Despite the best efforts of imposters, charlatans, hypocrites and identity thieves throughout history, the effect of Jesus Christ on history, especially after the terrestrial arrival of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been overwhelmingly positive. The basics of decent culture that are still left in our modern society owe themselves to Christ and the ones who followed his teachings.

Some people –if they were genuinely sincere and not just venting– ask how to tell the difference. Just compare the practice to the preaching. If it doesn’t match, it’s an imposter. Just make sure you don’t learn what the teaching is from people who don’t know it.

LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, and The Golden Rule…

Here’s two rules of thumb. One is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Simple. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12 Another is: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20

If only the tyrants and dictators who yell and go into fits trying to get Zelaya back into Honduras would be well served with the Golden Rule. They do not want people lying to them. The “human rights” hypocrites who claim they seek “reconciliation” by bringing the cause of division back into the country know full well that it would cause great trouble for Honduras. They know full well that the “Resistencia” does NOT want anything other than their socialist dictatorship, unfettered by bothersome human rights issues, and that Hondurans do not want this.

They know full well there was a constitutional succession. The idea is simply to force a small country to subjugate itself to the new world empire.

The “dangerous” Christians died by the tens of thousands under the had of Roman Emperors, in following these dictates.

Matthew 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

<……..>

LET ME COUNT THE WAYS: How the world is better off after Christ came in the flesh:

It is when they became comfortable and prosperous under less brutal regimes that the doctrines began deteriorating under such intellectuals as St. Augustin, who had too much fondness for Greek intellectual hubris, and in the embrace of political power under the cultivation of emperors like Constantine.

Too bad many of today's Christians have rushed to receive the embrace of government money, as in the States where they have to promise, cross their heart and hope to get arrested if they ever talk about Jesus while using that "faith-based" money.

If Christ had never been born, or if nobody had ever followed him, we would have missed a lot of what we were never taught in government schools in the States.

Gladiator bouts begone:

The intervention of one Christian bishop in a gladiator bout that cost him his life, brought to dead silence the cheers of that crowd that had yelled for his blood, and brought embarrassment to the emperor that had thumbed him down, and provided the ending bell for this "sport" of devils.

Infanticide, begone!

The Greeks and Romans routinely killed any babies they did not want or deem fit. Spartans left them on the rocks on the hillside, Athenians wrapped them up against the cold and left them in holes. Roman law said fathers could kill their sons for any reason or no reason whatsoever at any time. But infants were saved from infanticide when mothers learned they could leave an infant on the doorstep of a Christian couple, who were glad to rescue a child and raise him to maturity.
A Christian missionary came back from China and spoke at a forum in an ecumenical council in Chicago around 1900. He begged them not to pass a resolution giving moral equivalency to all religions, pointing to the "baby pond" in the Chinese village where he resided, where some villagers went to throw "unwanted' infants. The mass genocides by atheist regimes were still yet future.

Cannibalism, begone:

Even the father of Darwinism himself, Charles Darwin, defended Christian missionaries in a letter to the editor, in answer to a tirade against them. He said if you were a world traveller like me, and had to make port in a faraway unknown island, you would behold the steeple with a cross atop with the greatest relief that you were not going to end up in a pot of stew.

Orphanages:

The practice of receiving "unwanted" babies that would have been sacrificed evolved later into orphanages.

Hospitals:

Orders of Christians who took in the sick and infirm became known for being such centers and evolved into today's hospitals.

Literacy:

The former slave to an Irish noble, St.Patrick, brought his message of love to the Irish. That message ended the brutal practices of Druid priests in Ireland, ended the human sacrifice, ended slavery in Ireland.

Patrick also taught the Irish to read and write. They took to the practice feverishly. The monasteries of his followers, which were families living together in harmony and in which sometimes women were the leaders, took such a delight in books that they rescued the great bulk of Greek and Roman classics that survive to us today, copying with copious dedication everything possible, while the Huns and Visigoths and assorted barbarians burned every library they could find.

Charlemagne learned of the fame of the learned monks from Ireland and Britain and brought them to his palaces to establish centers at which they could teach the priesthood throughout his reach.

Science:

With the Reformation, and the liberation it brought to thinkers and tinkerers everywhere, science flourished. Christianity cultivated modern science as we know it today, and so say as a historical fact historians who are much less than enamored with Christianity.

Just for example, it took the Internet free of the constraints of top-down controlled education to make it general knowledge that Isaac Newton, acclaimed to this day as the greatest scientist, wrote more about the Bible and his Christian beliefs than he did about science and math.

The Bible itself actually invites the reader to challenge the science. Paul did not say "Can you feel it", "If it feels right do it", he said we do not follow fables but we follow facts, and he points to more than five hundred people who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

The "heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork". (Psalm 19:1) David also spoke of the way God "wrote" our members into our body in the womb, a verse that one atheist said I twisted to make it sound like DNA!

See for yourself: Psalms 139:16  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

–Alan
http://www.truebook.wordpress.com
http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com

Fossils Are Talking to You!

April 24, 2010

>>>(gluadys) And, that, by the way, –(that God is not a deceiver, therefore we can trust that our perceptions are of a real world)—is the reason I accept evolution. The “real world stuff” leads to no other conclusion.

Nice try. See below what God tells us about that philosophically in Romans about that: Notice that it says we understand his invisible things by what was made, which is polar opposite to the spontaneous accidental PAGAN darwinian model.

The “real world stuff” is Creation, Creation. No matter you’ve acted like the Brits, who, coming upon their first platypus, felt sorry for the “poor otter”, poor victim of some perverted joker, and tried for quite some time to unglue the duck’s beak from its snout. Poor platypus.

Presented with “real world stuff”, the only conclusion for them was an otter with a duck’s beak.

Evolution is nowhere to be seen. The strongest evidence is the “real world fossils”. They cry out Creation..

    The fossils

cry out: “There are no transitions!” The forensics scream out special separate Creation of “kinds”, which are what Steven Gould calls “forms” in paleontology.

The fossils cry out “Sudden flood!” , the precise conditions for fossilization.

The fossils say “waves of mud burying us alive in fast succession”. Go check where there are the narratives that talk about fossil fields, they all say this. Meaning they also cry out “sudden destruction”.

The fossils say “sudden simultaneous explosion of life” in the Cambrian layer. Not only that but “ALL high-level-major categories of body plans”, about a dozen or so, of which less than half persist today. This means they also cry out, following the “sudden and immediate explosion of life”, came “Sudden destruction!”.

The dinosaur fossils are BLEEDING red blood cells to send us a message from their mass grave that they did not live so long ago. “If you break me, do I not show you my bone marrow cell structures? If you consider me under a microscope, do I not bleed?”

The “missing link fossils that aren’t there” yell out with all their lungs that they DID NOT EXIST!, a vast void that rivals the emptiness between galaxy clusters.

The “pre-human fossils” cry out too, they will not shut up! “We are human!” Or another one “I am primate!” Or the other one: “I am just a sick kid!”

The “living fossils” are not only talking to us from the past, they are mocking us. “Fooled you, you fool” you say, you can’t fool me with that “No big deal” theater act. Extinct dinosaur pines, indeed. Coalecanth, indeed. But living fossils are not the only fossils mocking us…

“Fake fossils” make even bigger mockery of fools than “living fossils”, because they tell us the Emperor has no Clothes, and the Paleontologist Is Desperate for a Missing Link Because They Have None. they tell us that devout faithful darwinian pagan high priests are making fools of their gullible awestruck victims with their solemn pronouncements proclaiming yet another “creature older than these here hills”…

The real-world Chinese “dino-bird fossil” fraud cries out: There.is.no.dino-bird! Got that? Repeat now: There. Is. No. Dino-bird.

“Polystrate fossils are rolling on the floor laughing!” Because they’re saying, “I’m telling you all these layers around me came down in fast waves from a Big Flood and you think it’s cause I just snuck in here? What, you think God is a deceiver?!”

Real world fossils are the best testimony to a living God who created us.

We owe him our existence, and that’s the evidence the most mocking atheist does not want to see, whence the great deceit, the big lie of darwinoid evolution.

The fossils yell it loud, they yell it proud, they yell it here, they yell it there, they tell it everywhere:

“Darwin’s evolution is a big, fat, LIE!”

–Alan

Romans 1:19 ¶Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: